>>>This really is a question of risk-benefit ratio. It's no different than whether you put your seat belt on. Doing so protects you from a number of dangers, but increases the danger of being stuck in a burning car. Most of us have long since concluded that the protections a seat belt offers outweigh the risks it introduces.
>>
>>Yes, it is a question of risk-benefit, but is not exactly the same as the seat belt example because the sort of risk we talk about vary with location.
>
>Actually, that variance applies with seat belts, too. The risks of driving vary dramatically based on circumstances.
>
>>You don't understand everybody's situation, and your blanket statements about necessity does not apply to everybody.
>
>I don't think I made blanket statements, other than saying that I didn't think individuals should be able to get assault weapons. I know I've made several comments about significant differences based on urban/suburban living vs. rural living.
>
>Tamar

Yes, you are correct. I apologize. This thread has gotten too long for me to keep straight.